team standings as posted by usfirst.org

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

Can someone take a moment to check my logic about this? It doesn't seem common to be using this tie-breaker, but I wonder if it is being tracked properly.

That seems to be correct. Cumulative Coopertition Bonus should be tracked for the Coopertition Award, the single highest should be tracked as a tiebreaker according to my reading of section 9.3.9

[Bill_B]

Thanks, Kevin, I guess I took the column to be for the tie-breaking use because the next one over is cumulative hanging points; also a tie-breaker possibility. I had forgotten about the CB award aspect.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

Thanks, Kevin, I guess I took the column to be for the tie-breaking use because the next one over is cumulative hanging points; also a tie-breaker possibility. I had forgotten about the CB award aspect.

I agree, it seems like having the highest CB in a column with the cumulative hanging next to it and perhaps the cumulative CB all the way to the right would be more clear as to what is used to rank teams.

With the way it is now it is unclear if the tiebreaker being used is highest single CB or cumulative CB. If they are using highest single CB as seems to be indicated in the manual it seems like it should appear on the standings somewhere.

[waialua359]

That would be our team with the 52. The next place team has a 26. Most teams played 7 out of 10 matches already.
At SD last week, there were 2 teams tied for the most CS points. The 1266 team had the tie-breaker in hanging points, hence the award.

[johnr]

On a different note, i was looking thru the standings for that odd number under hanging points. My thinking being that an odd number would denote a suspended bot. To my surprise there is an odd number at Florida, but it is the number 1. How can you get 1 for hanging?

[Johnny]

Originally Posted by johnr

On a different note, i was looking thru the standings for that odd number under hanging points. My thinking being that an odd number would denote a suspended bot. To my surprise there is an odd number at Florida, but it is the number 1. How can you get 1 for hanging?

Maybe they had a match with one penalty and only scored with one hanging robot? Not completely sure how that would work.

[leah_2996]

I saw the same thing. There were actually two teams at the Florida Regional that got one hanging point- team 1592 and 118. I read that both teams do not have hangers, and I also researched it and found out that they were on the same alliance during match #19 on Friday. Does anyone know how one hanging point is possible?! It's driving me a bit crazy ha ha

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

You get one "hanging" point for being parked on the tower platform (and touching the tower sides).

Just curious, but where did you get that? this definition:

ELEVATED: A ROBOT that is completely above the plane of the PLATFORM and in contact with the TOWER shall be considered ELEVATED.

And this rule:

<G04> b. Each ELEVATED ROBOT is awarded 2 points, or each SUSPENDED ROBOT is awarded 3 points

Tell me otherwise. The GDC already stated on Q&A that the platform is part of the tower, and that a robot parked on the platform is considered "above the pane of the platform", and touching the tower. I see no rule awarding one point except a scored ball.

The way I read it, if you are parked on the platform, and no part of your robot is below the platform, regardless of whether or not you are touching the support poles for the tower, you get two bonus points.

[Mark McLeod]

No, I was wrong. I'd misremembered the point count at the end of the game animation.

The Head Ref at NJ addressing the driver teams did demonstrate that the robot on the platform was not considered elevated unless it also was touching part of the tower structure, e.g., a side pole, but I can't say if that interpretation was correct or even changed subsequent to the first week's regionals.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

No, I was wrong. I'd misremembered the point count at the end of the game animation.

The Head Ref at NJ addressing the driver teams did demonstrate that the robot on the platform was not considered elevated unless it also was touching part of the tower structure, e.g., a side pole, but I can't say if that interpretation was correct or even changed subsequent to the first week's regionals.

According to this Q&A answer, the head ref was, regrettably, incorrect.

Old 01-14-2010, 11:28 PM
GDC GDC is offline
Game Design Committee

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,407
Default Re: <G30> Tower Contact - Platform
A ROBOT that is resting on top of the PLATFORM, with all parts of the ROBOT completely above the plane of the PLATFORM, is both in contact with the PLATFORM (which is part of the TOWER) and above the plane of the PLATFORM. Therefore, the definition of "ELEVATED" is satisfied.

[johnr]

I will go with what someone said earlier about a penalty knocking it down to one. Since there is no third team with a odd number i would guess that team was either a complete no-show or that team was dq'd.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Rizner

I disagree, the platform is part of the tower structure. The head ref seems correct in their statement to me.

I think that you misread the previous post. He was stating that the head ref would be wrong if they ruled that the robot on the platform had to be touching the poles to count. As you have noted and was in the rules, if the robot is on the platform then it is in contact with the tower even if it is not touching a pole.

[Rizner]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I think that you misread the previous post. He was stating that the head ref would be wrong if they ruled that the robot on the platform had to be touching the poles to count. As you have noted and was in the rules, if the robot is on the platform then it is in contact with the tower even if it is not touching a pole.

Originally Posted by martin417

What statement is that? I wasn't there, but according to Mark McLeod



If the head ref actually stated that a robot is not elevated unless it was touching a side pole, then he was incorrect.

The way I read it was the ref gave an example that the side pole was part of the tower, not saying that the pole was the tower (apparently reading the whole sentence helps). I see now that I have misread it -- sorry for the confusion.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Rizner

I disagree, the platform is part of the tower structure. The head ref seems correct in their statement to me.

What statement is that? I wasn't there, but according to Mark McLeod

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

.....The Head Ref at NJ addressing the driver teams did demonstrate that the robot on the platform was not considered elevated unless it also was touching part of the tower structure, e.g., a side pole, .....

If the head ref actually stated that a robot is not elevated unless it was touching a side pole, then he was incorrect.